Are EA/DICE really this despicable?
377 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
I have been thinking for a while about the whole premium deal and BF.
Imo, EA/DICE are purposely giving us a discounted version of BF, without the premium.
They are purposely slacking on the live service.
Because the fans will cry over a lack of content, and then blame the no premium part, instead of blaming EA/DICE.
Then, when the next BF comes around, they re-introduce premium, and come off as the good guys.
Any of you agree?
Imo, EA/DICE are purposely giving us a discounted version of BF, without the premium.
They are purposely slacking on the live service.
Because the fans will cry over a lack of content, and then blame the no premium part, instead of blaming EA/DICE.
Then, when the next BF comes around, they re-introduce premium, and come off as the good guys.
Any of you agree?
9
- 70 Battlefield V - Announcements
- 19.9K Battlefield V - General Discussion
- 609 Battlefield V - Firestorm Discussion
- 3.5K Battlefield V - PC Community
- 1.4K Battlefield V - PlayStation Community
- 1.1K Battlefield V - Xbox Community
- 910 Battlefield V - Platoon Recruitment
- 35 Battlefield V - Bugs & Issues
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
They're not purposely slacking on the live service - at the moment I'd say the main issue is that the main revenue system outside of initial purchase has not actually been implemented yet, due to firstly an intentional delay and then one which they decided to do because players had an issue where they couldn't get any Company Coin (and I respect them for making that decision, but I think it has hurt the game somewhat).
The thing is with a live service model is that, especially if the main post-purchase revenue scheme is cosmetic items in a first person shooter, there's never going to be as much money going into development as in a premium pass model. Live service can work well, and I think that it is a better system than a premium pass, but it needs to be implemented carefully, and I don't think that they did a particularly good job. Perhaps that will change with the release of Battlefield Coins, but I don't see it making a huge difference.
Yes, I definitely think a huge company like EA has the financial power and foresight to make a move like this, even if it costs them short-term, and I think it naive to thnk they would not or could not.
Tell me this, why did the game launch with less maps than earlier itterations of bf?
It could also be they started out hoping for better numbers, had they met those numbers, maybe the content would be more plentiful and the liveservice better.
Maybe they gave up after seing the low sales.
My opinion tho, is that of my opening statement.
I think all the problems and complaints of this game stem from it intentionally originally being created to be a battle royal game..
Could also very well be the case.
It's the most unfinished, buggy, half-butted game I've ever played (I haven't played the latest Fallout, and I don't intend to).
I've been a big fan since BF1942, but BFV killed the franchise for me.
I thought of this too but I doubt that. EA never listens to fans and even If fans would cry for more lootboxes they wouldn't listen. People were crying for 10 years that season pass separates player base, suddenly they listened. Now we'll be crying another 10 years to get season pass back. It's actually worth it for EA that way. They spend minimum cash on development of games like Anthem, Battlefield V, Battlefront II and they just put in microtransactions for skins. Even though the games seem dead, people still play them and I believe EA earns more than they did with season pass, because with season pass they had to spend some additional resources to make the season pass content happen, now people can pay the price of a season pass for skins which weren't in Battlefield 1 or Battlefront 1 but still only have original game.
I don't think they are purposefully slacking, I just don't think they know what a live service is. I don't believe they were at all prepared for what a live service actually entails. I don't believe they understood the level of commitment that a live service for a game released in 2018 requires.
They continue to treat the whole endeavour as though the gaming industry was still in the mid 2000s with big, slow to produce updates and with new content few and far between.
I don't believe the game was even close to being ready for launch either because it feels as though they have been chasing their own tails for the past four months just trying to keep the game working because the game still is not feature complete. The lack of any sort of monetisation in the game is a pretty big indication of how far behind they are in their work.
I would say I'm hopeful that once monetisation is implemented into the game that it will see greater financial success that would encourage a greater deal of support but Dice Sweden really needs to take a serious look at their archaic patching process and bring it in line with modern gaming.
Agreed. And I think that is for the better, but it has to be said that Battlefield V has not had a good live service so far, and I think that's down to them not being fully equipped or prepared to actually meet the expectations of a live service. I think it could be going better if they'd had premium currency available from launch - a mistake that they've carried over from Battlefront 2, although for a different reason.
How is it a Battle Royale game? Yes, Firestorm is coming, but it's not a BR unless the phrase has multiple meanings and one is 'first person team shooter', which I don't think it is. Could you elaborate how the addition of BR has ruined the game?
Firstly, I dont think the game is ruined. I should have argued that point to begin with. I still am excited for firestorm and cant wait to try it.
I think the addition was planned long ago but I dont think it was planned as an addition, its just another delayed feature..
BUT I think DICE/EA not advertising firestorm from the beginning caused people to expect a "traditional" battlefield which with the coming inclusion of firestorm led to mixed expectations and the complaints/frustrations you see..
Im probably starting to ramble so.. Thats all for now..
Also, I meant to say "originally" instead of "intentionally"..
This sums up exactly how I feel..
You must be very naive.
There is a saying "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."
Not at all. EA desperately wants “live service” in all of its games to emulate Fortnite and Fifa.
But, we WARNED you that EA and DICE are not even remotely capable of doing a live service. But nooooooooooooo, everyone thought “hm we can have our cake and eat it too, and we totally trust EA to give us free stuff, how can we lose!”
Lesson learned.
Honestly never minded the premium pass in bf games, they were worth the money imo.
And tbh, it did not really divide the playerbase that much. Finding more empty servers in BF V only 5 months in, than the end cycle of BF1.
good points and they also pushed the game into a new fiscal year which has fiscal advantages for a "flop". Fast forward to underwhelming sales and you have a company with excess inventory that they have to discount to move. This is called PREDATORY in buisness and marketing worlds.
Exactly!
Uhm which community, the youtube jerks and their blind followers?
Yes, premium split the player base. But it's either that and split the player base or they give us a live service where we're looking at one map every few months if we're lucky, instead of a guaranteed 4 content packs with at least 4 maps, weapons, factions or whatever else they want to put in.
I'd rather have premium. Ditch tides of war and games as a service. It's a failure.